Jesus was a feminist

[didymos]

A feminist is someone who supports the equality of all sexs

Whaddaya mean: 'ALL sexes?'
There are only TWO.

 

[Roamer]

I wont say what first came into my head when I read this post.

''Let all women learn quietly in submissiveness, I do not permit women to teach or exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."---- 1 Timothy 2:11-12


"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord"---- Ephesians 5:22


I really wonder sometimes... Feminism is of course not biblical.

Here is some sincere advice, if you want something other than the truth, don't take a lie and claim it to be true in the name of Christ.

With all discussions about feminism, we need to first define what we mean by it. As Rachel20 has already pointed out, there are different versions of feminism - some good, some bad, some biblical, some unbiblical. It's always easy to scoff at and dismiss the worst version of an 'ism' you can possibly think of. Feminism is no different.

Mainstream feminism is simply the striving for equality of the sexes. It has a particular focus on women, not because it believes that women are inherently better than men, but because it is a lived reality that females are disproportionately oppressed relative to men. East or West, women still disproportionately suffer sexual violence, depressed wages, objectification and discrimination. The issues differ from region to region, but anyone who doesn't see the overarching theme of female oppression... is frankly blind. Individual (privileged) women may not see the value of feminism personally, but women as an entire group sure as heck do.

Given this understanding of feminism, I don't understand how it could be thought to be unbiblical. I for one am perfectly comfortable with the idea of being both Christian and strongly feminist at the same time. You don't have to call addressing female oppression 'feminism', but going on disparaging feminism (a la 'Women Against Feminism' style) hurts the real business of what it's about - addressing the staggering amount of mistreatment that a large proportion of women in our world suffer.

It is well and good to preach that gender inequality is a consequence of disobedience to God. That is true. What is also true is that we live in a broken, secular world that needs an active social, political and economic prism through which to effect positive change for women. Mainstream feminism offers that. In God's love we need to support it - not tear it down.

By the way - the verses quoted above have a specific context, and must be read as such. Using them to dismiss feminism is simply wrong. (But that's an entire post in itself...)

 

[gene77]

With all discussions about feminism, we need to first define what we mean by it. As Rachel20 has already pointed out, there are different versions of feminism - some good, some bad, some biblical, some unbiblical. It's always easy to scoff at and dismiss the worst version of an 'ism' you can possibly think of. Feminism is no different.

Mainstream feminism is simply the striving for equality of the sexes. It has a particular focus on women, not because it believes that women are inherently better than men, but because it is a lived reality that females are disproportionately oppressed relative to men. East or West, women still disproportionately suffer sexual violence, depressed wages, objectification and discrimination. The issues differ from region to region, but anyone who doesn't see the overarching theme of female oppression... is frankly blind. Individual (privileged) women may not see the value of feminism personally, but women as an entire group sure as heck do.

Given this understanding of feminism, I don't understand how it could be thought to be unbiblical. I for one am perfectly comfortable with the idea of being both Christian and strongly feminist at the same time. You don't have to call addressing female oppression 'feminism', but going on disparaging feminism (a la 'Women Against Feminism' style) hurts the real business of what it's about - addressing the staggering amount of mistreatment that a large proportion of women in our world suffer.

It is well and good to preach that gender inequality is a consequence of disobedience to God. That is true. What is also true is that we live in a broken, secular world that needs an active social, political and economic prism through which to effect positive change for women. Mainstream feminism offers that. In God's love we need to support it - not tear it down.

By the way - the verses quoted above have a specific context, and must be read as such. Using them to dismiss feminism is simply wrong. (But that's an entire post in itself...)

I totally agree. Living in a country (now listed as the worst country for a woman ), our fight for freedom can be different as the equality that women in the West seek. 80% of Indian men consider it as the woman's fault if she gets raped. I, as an Indian woman, have no freedom of safety. I do not feel safe. I cannot stay out of the house once it gets dark, because I may get molested. I cannot wear shorts or skirts or even a sleeveless top out on the road because I get leered at and gawked at. I get stared (my chest mostly) every single time I am out riding my motorbike or driving my car. Yes, men turn and stare right into my car window. I have to double check my balcony doors every time I go to bed because someone could jump in and molest me in the night. Yet, the men roam around freely, without fear of being molested.

Women in my state were beaten up because they were drinking in a pub. Women were beaten because they were wearing western clothing. Women were raped because they were too attractive for men to hold their hormones down and keep their junk in their pants. I'm sorry, I just faced enough "inequality" on the streets today while driving home that I can rant about it. If there is a mishap on the road between a woman driver and a man, everyone assumes that it had to be the woman's fault, since women are oh-so-bad drivers.

Women here are fighting just to feel safe, and just for respect. We are looked down upon. And, yes, this fight for freedom is feminism too. So, no, I don't think women here want to be above men in anyway. We just want the same rights, and the same freedom. Just simple things like the right to wear what we want to (like jeans!), the right to go for a jog alone in the morning or evening, the right to ride a motorcycle without having nasty comments thrown at them, the right to drink alcohol if we want to, the right to marry whoever we want to (without a dowry!), the right to go shopping in a market without getting groped. This is what Indian feminists are fighting for, and I'm sure this is what Jesus would want his daughters to have.

I do not know what other definitions of feminism lie in other countries. I just know that Indian women want safety. And, I am grateful for having really great guy friends and male relatives who believe in this cause, and stand up for women.

 

[Rachel20]

Keep in mind that among the first few post christianfeminist put up were to go around and say 'eww that's gross' to others posts that she disagree with. She hasn't exactly been a beacon of kindness herself. My first thought when i saw her initial posts was 'troll' as well.




I also don't remember 'go into all the world and preach the gospel...... of feminism' being anywhere in the bible.

Should we be kind to people only because they are kind to us?



Isn't the gospel of Jesus this - that He came to die for us while we were still sinners, that He loved us that much? That we didn't do anything of our own accord, but it was His kindness and mercy upon us?

 

[oldhermit]

Christian feminist - This is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

 

[MidniteWelder]

Jesus was a hardcore feminist. Time after time he stood up to the men of the time in defense of women. His relationship with Mary Magdalene reflects how Christ wants us to treat women, specifically those shunned and outcasted. When she was slut shamed He told her accusers to leave. Or when she washed His feet with her hair, an act of complete service, the disciples were upset He would let a sinner touch Him. He responded turning to her toward the woman, He said to Simon,

Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.
-- Luke 7:44-57

Jesus was a feminist, and it's time the Christian church was too.

The example which you have used shows Jesus loves humbleness, submission, obedience and willing slavelike servitude to him as Lord.
The church knows this.
It's time you do too.

 

[Jamal]

Feminism seems to be an expression of hatred of God and men. "Equality" might be their advertising, but feminist organisations support special rights for women and are silent where men get the short end of the stick. Feminist organizations also overwhelmingly support unbiblical morality and politics. For this alone alone, "Christian feminist" sounds like a contradiction in terms. But, even for "feminists" who really do only have equality in mind, they still are not on the side of the Bible.

Jesus chose twelve men to be his disciples. Let's see any of you provide offices only for men and see how many feminists call you a feminist. Yes, Jesus was accompanied by some females, but they didn't hold any office with Jesus.

Let a woman wash your feet and see how that goes over with feminists. A Pharisee criticized Jesus for letting a "sinner" wash his feet. It had nothing to do with her being a woman. Jesus' response is that she has been forgiven her sins. She was repentant! I expect that women did just about all the feet washing of male guests, in those days. Jesus was just letting her do women's work.

 

[Revelator7]

Galatians 3:28 NASB
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

To understand this we have to read Galatians chapter 3 in context. The writer of Galatians was speaking on the equality of all people who believe in God in regards to belonging to Christ. Many people including Christian folk misapply this Scripture and twist it to their own perceptions of the Bible in order to suit their own seperate beliefs and agendas. Galatians 3 is talking about salvation. It is not talking about the Biblical order for women in the church nor is it talking about the roles that women play.

Biblically, if anyone thinks of himself as spiritually inclined, he or she must understand that what the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy and to the church in Corinth regarding women was the Lord's command. Refer to 1 Corinthians 14:33-38. If anyone has an issue with the words of Paul refer to 2 Peter 3:14-18. Still, if you have an issue with the words of Paul please thoroughly understand that it is not me, nor the men, or the church in general that you are contending against, but it is the word of God itself that you are fighting.

For another opinion about Galatians 3 click on this link: http://carm.org/gal-328-shows-women-can-be-ministry-elders-and-pastors

 

[Revelator7]

Jesus, a "hardcore feminist"? Are you not exaggerating? That "time after time" he stood up against men in defense of women? There are only two times where it is recorded that Jesus stood up for a woman. But even then he wasn't standing up in defense for them against men, he was standing up for them against the Law and against self righteous opinions. Against the Law that this person was caught in the act of adultery where she was to be stoned to death, and against self righteous opinions because she was a prostitute and the Pharisees hated "sinners". It has nothing to do with the fact that they happened to be women, but it has everything to do with the law and sin. Those people could have been men because according to Leviticus 20:10 if a man commited adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman had to be put to death. And the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her hair and tears, that could have been a homosexual prostitute with long hair.

What you are doing is you are trying to use Jesus, the most ultimate person (not to mention he is God) that you could use in your case, you are trying to use him as your medium for your feminist agenda. Because if you can paint an image to everyone you come into contact to with having Jesus be the validator for your case, then you could "win" the hearts of all Christians. And to attach words to him like "Hardcore Feminist", that's the focus that you wish to see others have because you want them to share your bias veiw. I bet you just want something to fight for, you want something to fight about. There's a drive in you that brings you to your knees and desires you to press the issue, not for other women, but for yourself. Everything you're doing here in CC and probably else where in your life is a reflection of your emotional state and your insecurities because of a low self-esteem. You feel the need for power and control. So you manipulate others including men with your words through bias and exaggeration even at the cost of not having sound contexual support in your use of the Bible. If I weren't mistaken I'd say you are struggling with a Jezebel spirit, a very strong one indeed. Jezebel is all about control. The sad part is you don't even know it. You are not fighting against me, or against men, or against the church in general, but you are fighting against the infallible and enerrant all powerful word of God. I speak these words with much love, thought it is tough. My words are honest and straight to the point. I'm not calling you names, I'm not degrading you, I'm just calling you out. If you are going to publically affect the body of Christ with your honest ignorance, then I am going to publically affect you. It's not that I want to be right, it's just that I know the Bible is right. And whether you like it or not, a lot of people can see right through you and some even know your intent. Better is open rebuke than hidden love, faithful are the wounds of a friend. Proverbs 27:5-6

 

[Mem]

Wow, I mind short circuited reading through posts and I forgot what I wanted to say. After regaining my bearings, I remembered.

I already know the consensus translation of this passage is that the vile person, mentioned in Daniel 11:37, is perhaps gay, but at the risk of excommunication, I will take advantage of the liberty to voice my, however biased, insight.

"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all."

Not to disregard the rest of the verse but solely for the purpose of understand what it reads concerning the desire of women. I imagine most me think of this in the sense of lust for women. So, to clarify how I read it, I take the liberty to rephrase it for the purpose of focus on this as I believe it was intending regard this particular phrase.

Neither shall he regard the desires of women: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Namely, he has no regard for women's concerns, protect them from any injustice or abuse, let alone all any to be over him.

 

[Jamal]

Galatians 3:28 NASB
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

To understand this we have to read Galatians chapter 3 in context. The writer of Galatians was speaking on the equality of all people who believe in God in regards to belonging to Christ. Many people including Christian folk misapply this Scripture and twist it to their own perceptions of the Bible in order to suit their own seperate beliefs and agendas. Galatians 3 is talking about salvation. It is not talking about the Biblical order for women in the church nor is it talking about the roles that women play.

It's dishonesty for anyone to defend female pastors with Galatians 3:28. They take the verse out of context, add crass meanings to the words, and then use it to trump very clear verses. Neither male nor female? When they were saved, did they become hermaphrodites?

 

[Revelator7]

Wow, I mind short circuited reading through posts and I forgot what I wanted to say. After regaining my bearings, I remembered.

I already know the consensus translation of this passage is that the vile person, mentioned in Daniel 11:37, is perhaps gay, but at the risk of excommunication, I will take advantage of the liberty to voice my, however biased, insight.

"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all."

Not to disregard the rest of the verse but solely for the purpose of understand what it reads concerning the desire of women. I imagine most me think of this in the sense of lust for women. So, to clarify how I read it, I take the liberty to rephrase it for the purpose of focus on this as I believe it was intending regard this particular phrase.

Neither shall he regard the desires of women: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Namely, he has no regard for women's concerns, protect them from any injustice or abuse, let alone all any to be over him.

New International Version
He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.

New Living Translation
He will have no respect for the gods of his ancestors, or for the god loved by women, or for any other god, for he will boast that he is greater than them all.

English Standard Version
He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all.

From these three translations it looks like it is meaning to say that he won't have regard for god(s) of any one else. That he will be his own god.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
He will not show regard for the gods of his fathers, the god longed for by women, or for any other god, because he will magnify himself above all.

International Standard Version
He'll recognize neither the gods of his ancestors nor those desired by women—he won't recognize any god, because he'll exalt himself above everything.

NET Bible
He will not respect the gods of his fathers--not even the god loved by women. He will not respect any god; he will elevate himself above them all.

 

[Jamal]

I already know the consensus translation of this passage is that the vile person, mentioned in Daniel 11:37, is perhaps gay, but at the risk of excommunication, I will take advantage of the liberty to voice my, however biased, insight.

"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all."

This verse is about hubris, not sexual perversion.

 

[psychomom]

a-a-a-nd the OP is still missing...

perhaps we should remember that women in Jesus' day were considered little more than property,

and that we Americans need to listen to those women in other countries where feminism is more about
what it was here over 100 years ago.

i'm not fond of the term (feminism...i prefer human rights)
but my heart goes out to those in nations where ladies don't have the blessings
already given to American women.

and, frankly, as long as people are sinful, crime will occur...

but may i suggest that though in Jesus' day women were not equal,
and there was slavery (look at Philemon), and other injustices,
He preached salvation. ♥
because that's the real way the other stuff gets dealt with.

 

[JesusIsAll]

This verse is about hubris, not sexual perversion.

Yes, perhaps another way of considering this. Antichrist will be all about himself, hoodwinking many and controlling the world, warring, setting himself up as a false god. His agenda will be all consuming, in so short a time. Look at a guy like Hitler. The only female relationships he had were on the fringe of things, married Eva Braun then shortly blew his brains out, which would take most men some years to get to that point. You also have love a motivation for relationships, and the likes of the devil probably runs a real deficit in that department, you suppose? I just don't think the Antichrist is going to be a family kind of guy, you could say, who will be into loving another person(s), that he would even see the value of it.

 

[Roamer]

Feminism seems to be an expression of hatred of God and men. "Equality" might be their advertising, but feminist organisations support special rights for women and are silent where men get the short end of the stick. Feminist organizations also overwhelmingly support unbiblical morality and politics. For this alone alone, "Christian feminist" sounds like a contradiction in terms. But, even for "feminists" who really do only have equality in mind, they still are not on the side of the Bible.

Jesus chose twelve men to be his disciples. Let's see any of you provide offices only for men and see how many feminists call you a feminist. Yes, Jesus was accompanied by some females, but they didn't hold any office with Jesus.

Let a woman wash your feet and see how that goes over with feminists. A Pharisee criticized Jesus for letting a "sinner" wash his feet. It had nothing to do with her being a woman. Jesus' response is that she has been forgiven her sins. She was repentant! I expect that women did just about all the feet washing of male guests, in those days. Jesus was just letting her do women's work.

Once again, I want to gently remind those here who attempt to assert that "feminism hates men" or "Christian feminist is an oxymoron" to first define what kind of feminism you are talking about. It seems you may be uncomfortable with anarcha-feminism, or certain stronger aspects of radical feminism. Perhaps most of you would agree with conservative feminism, and even support the legal endeavours of liberal feminism to secure equal pay for equal work and equal access for women in education. I see no critiques so far of transnational feminism, third-wave feminism or ecofeminism. If you do not have a broad understanding of these, Wikipedia is a great place to start before making any sweeping judgments.

My point is, to lump all feminisms together as 'feminism' and proceed to dismiss 'it' in a few sentences as man-hating or unBiblical shows a certain degree of pride and insensitivity about knowing everything there is to know about feminism, unintended or not. I second psychomum's wise words and urge everyone to read gene77 and Rachel20's posts on why feminism is so important in some parts of the world in everyday life - many of you seem to have ignored such posts in your haste to shoot down a movement that is, in your minds, dead simple. It's not.

About Jesus and whether or not he would have been a feminist: let's not forget, as some in here have already pointed out, that Jesus too lived in a certain social and cultural context. Of course he didn't stand up for women on certain occasions because he was a 'feminist' - feminisms in all its particular forms today did not exist back then as an identifiable movement. However, that is different to surmising that Jesus wouldn't identify as a feminist as we understand it today - with His hate for any kind of oppression and injustice, He may well be proud to associate Himself with feminism.

Finally, to those who point to verses in the Bible which call for submission of women and their silence in the church as if somehow they were evidence of feminism being unBiblical: We must not forget that Paul also wrote instructions specifically for masters and slaves, an implicit acceptance of a practice that was socially rampant at the time. If feminists who advocate for basic gender equality today are "against the Bible" because they challenge what Paul took as a given, then, for the sake of logical consistency, those who advocate against slavery (the treatment of a person as mere property, the buying and selling of humans) are against the Bible too.

If you are not comfortable with this last idea, then I suggest you also interpret the Bible through your own cultural and social lens, more than you care to admit (not necessarily a bad thing). We must be careful of applying uneven interpretative methods when reading Scripture. Especially when it leads us to simplistically dismiss what is, on the whole, an indispensable social movement for women's rights.

 

[TheClimaxWarrior]

a-a-a-nd the OP is still missing...

For the life of me I have been trying to figure out what is 'OP'?

 

[Blain]

For the life of me I have been trying to figure out what is 'OP'?

it means one of two things original post or original poster like how ot is old testament and nt is new testiment

 

[Revelator7]

For the life of me I have been trying to figure out what is 'OP'?

I think it means the Original Poster/Original Post

 

[TheClimaxWarrior]

Once again, I want to gently remind those here who attempt to assert that "feminism hates men" or "Christian feminist is an oxymoron" to first define what kind of feminism you are talking about. It seems you may be uncomfortable with anarcha-feminism, or certain stronger aspects of radical feminism. Perhaps most of you would agree with conservative feminism, and even support the legal endeavours of liberal feminism to secure equal pay for equal work and equal access for women in education. I see no critiques so far of transnational feminism, third-wave feminism or ecofeminism. If you do not have a broad understanding of these, Wikipedia is a great place to start before making any sweeping judgments.

My point is, to lump all feminisms together as 'feminism' and proceed to dismiss 'it' in a few sentences as man-hating or unBiblical shows a certain degree of pride and insensitivity about knowing everything there is to know about feminism, unintended or not. I second psychomum's wise words and urge everyone to read gene77 and Rachel20's posts on why feminism is so important in some parts of the world in everyday life - many of you seem to have ignored such posts in your haste to shoot down a movement that is, in your minds, dead simple. It's not.

About Jesus and whether or not he would have been a feminist: let's not forget, as some in here have already pointed out, that Jesus too lived in a certain social and cultural context. Of course he didn't stand up for women on certain occasions because he was a 'feminist' - feminisms in all its particular forms today did not exist back then as an identifiable movement. However, that is different to surmising that Jesus wouldn't identify as a feminist as we understand it today - with His hate for any kind of oppression and injustice, He may well be proud to associate Himself with feminism.

Finally, to those who point to verses in the Bible which call for submission of women and their silence in the church as if somehow they were evidence of feminism being unBiblical: We must not forget that Paul also wrote instructions specifically for masters and slaves, an implicit acceptance of a practice that was socially rampant at the time. If feminists who advocate for basic gender equality today are "against the Bible" because they challenge what Paul took as a given, then, for the sake of logical consistency, those who advocate against slavery (the treatment of a person as mere property, the buying and selling of humans) are against the Bible too.

If you are not comfortable with this last idea, then I suggest you also interpret the Bible through your own cultural and social lens, more than you care to admit (not necessarily a bad thing). We must be careful of applying uneven interpretative methods when reading Scripture. Especially when it leads us to simplistically dismiss what is, on the whole, an indispensable social movement for women's rights.

That's all fine and dandy for women's liberation where they have no voice and no freedom. Just don't carry it through to attack the House of GOD. I'm pretty sure that is the theme for this thread.

Other than that. I highly support feminism in a country that is an unsafe environment for women. I don't support feminism in the Church.